get_option_chain

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, data freshness, rate limits, or what exactly is returned beyond 'expirations and strikes'. This is a significant gap for a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence plus a concise code block. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every part is essential and no extra verbiage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the core functionality and gives examples, but does not fully describe the return structure (e.g., whether it returns separate lists for calls/puts) or edge cases. Could be more complete given no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds value by providing example values ('AAPL', 'SMART') which help clarify parameter usage. However, it does not explain what 'symbol' or 'exchange' mean beyond their names, and lacks details on expected formats or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'option expirations and strikes for an underlying symbol'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_market_data and get_positions, which serve different purposes. Usage examples further clarify the tool's scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage examples with common parameters, showing how to invoke the tool (e.g., with symbol alone or with exchange). However, no when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions are given, though sibling tools like resolve_option_conid exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.